Quantum Creationism -- Is It Science Or Is It Religion?

Discussion in 'Comparative Religion' started by Eugene Shubert, Jan 8, 2018.

  1. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    But there are videos that present evidence of criminality. Comically, some criminals are so unthinking that they take videos of their own crimes and then post them on facebook. Likewise, Alexander Vilenkin wasn't thinking when he testified on multiple videos, for public viewing, of his crime against science.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,542
    In a great many cases, they are. Partly because some people have trouble reading, and cranks are often trying to appeal to such people, since the uneducated are often more easily deceived. Partly because the uneducated prefer to watch TV, and partly because making a video is a lot easier than writing a paper.

    (Of course, there are exceptions.)
    Oh, it's not _evidence_ of crankery, just as a proliferation of porn shops, liquor stores, gun stores and pawn shops (and corresponding losses of libraries, museums and parks) are not evidence of a decline in a neighborhood. But they are suggestive of it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,440
    And, perhaps mostly, because video is the most direct and effective means of deception ever invented. It bypasses logic via image, duplicates and repeats itself almost without effort, leaves no trace of its omissions, and cannot be countered by reason or evidence without ten times the effort of making it.

    Seeing is believing. Out of sight, out of mind. The deceivers of this world know that by instinct.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Unquestionably, Alexander Vilenkin will be judged for his indisputable contribution in aiding and abetting the now rapidly accelerating moral decline of humanity, when he will stand before God at the final judgment.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,542
    For some people. For people raised on a steady diet of TV, there is no more authoritative source than video.
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,469
    Exactly.

    One of the things that makes video especially useless for serious analysis is that it is a linear medium. With the written word, one can easily find and select passages, read the content rapidly, see exactly what is being said, and consider the implications at leisure. With video, you are forced to follow the pace of the video and cannot easily pause or return to consider contentious statements. Furthermore, as you say, the use of images, usually without exact definition of what is being shown, can be used to create an impression, which be misinterpreted or even actively misleading.
     
  10. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Note that the crank that made up that claim has no science to backup his ridiculous fantasy.
     
  11. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,923
    Sure, sometimes they are. Some people post videos of their cats, some people post blogs, and some make discussion board posts on Sciforums.

    Eugene posted a video of Alexander Vilenkin that I haven't watched. Exchemist said that he hadn't watched it either. Then you chimed in suggesting that the fact it was a video was evidence that Vilenkin was a crank:

    Alexander Vilenkin is a reasonably prominent theoretical cosmologist at Tufts University. He has a long list of publications:

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=alexander vilenkin

    The fact that somebody made a video of him giving a lecture or being interviewed or something, doesn't imply anything about the quality of his ideas. To make a judgement about that, one would have to engage with the content of what he says, not just with its presentation format.

    The point that I want to make here is that university lectures, conference presentations, interviews and similar things are routinely recorded and turned into videos available (often for free) online. The fact that it's presented in video format tells us nothing about the quality of the material, whether the lecturer is a crank or whether the institution that employs the lecturer is reputable.

    https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/audio-video-courses/

    https://www.youtube.com/c/stanfordinstitutefortheoreticalphysics

    https://www.youtube.com/user/SLAC

    https://www.youtube.com/user/videosfromIAS

    https://www.youtube.com/user/PIOutreach

    https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/oxford-physics-public-lectures

    https://www.edx.org/

    http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses

    And on and on...
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2018
  12. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    hmm.. one can rewind, pause or fast forward with a video as well. as for images that create an impression, it depends if you want to be impressed or what exactly you are trying to filter or gain from the video. if it's facts, then you listen for facts; if it's an impression; you watch or listen for those. it's not like you don't have a choice, unless you absolutely have a problem with discernment.
     
  13. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    sure, this makes perfect sense because before video, audio, tv and the internet, people were so much more informed and had better critical thinking faculties like 'magic' than today.

    actually, it's just the opposite as the time-consuming aspect of literature or news going to print was often outdated by the time it was widely circulated or not easily revised. just because something is in 'print' format does not mean it is without bias, prejudice, or even true.

    they are all valid mediums but print is the source/foundation of everything we use to communicate such as written language we use in video and audio so it's understandably indispensable in comparison to the other mediums.

    for example, youtube, is an amazing and useful source of information just as well as anything else on video/audio format or print, if you know how to search for what you are looking for.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2018
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,542
    ?? Of course; much (if not most) of the written material in the world is fiction (novels and the like.)
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,542
    Nope. I said that serious scientists tend to publish papers, cranks tend to make Youtube videos. I have no idea what Vilenkin's video is about, or what his deal is. The fact that Eugene is pushing it is a strong argument that he is a crank, though.
     
  16. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    no, serious scientists publish papers first and then may appear on youtube to discuss their ideas. youtube videos doesn't mean it's always crank.

    it is just a medium to reach a larger audience or to gain notice/attention like advertising.
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,542
    Right. They do publish papers. They might appear in videos. Cranks make Youtube videos. They might try to publish papers (but usually fail.)
    Right - it's merely likely.
     
  18. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,923
    While I don't necessarily agree with Vilenkin, I respect him. I think that most of his work is eminently scientific. Even his 'something from nothing' speculations aren't without value, even if they seem to me to be more metaphysics than science. (I'm not opposed to metaphysics.)

    Sorry to say, I don't see anything even remotely scientific about your blog post, Eugene. In fact I find it exceedingly bizarre. If any "crimes" have been committed against science (assuming that phrase even makes sense) they seemingly were committed by you when you tried to suggest that your Biblical exegesis is science.

    http://truthinverity.org/three-angels-messages/

    I don't understand your hostility to Vilenkin or what point you want to make in this thread by attacking him.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2018
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,469
    You can, in principle, but it's a pain in the bum - and you still have to write down what was actually said if you want to sure of what is being said. With something like theology, philosophy or science, the exact terminology is important.

    I remember so vividly my first term at university. I had to learn all about atomic structure and spectra. It was tough. I had a couple of books and I would read a chapter, go back, read it again, then go back and re-read particular passages that I could not quite follow, and compare them with the other book, ask fellow students and my tutor about them etc. Trying to do that sort of thing from a video would have been impossibly painful. If you really want to understand something of any complexity, you need to see it in words, (and, this being physical chemistry, equations, with some diagrams thrown in, but that's by the by). A video may help, to give you an overall impression or to introduce a topic but that's all it can do. (In fact, we were once shown a video of the Stern-Gerlach experiment, and I recall the hilarity with which this was greeted by the students. It was pitched too low for them and didn't really get into the nitty-gritty. But what a pain to sit through 15 mins of this and only find out at the end that it was going to leave you short of a proper understanding.) The spoken text in a 15min video can generally be read in 2 minutes. That's how wasteful it is.
     
  20. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    well, of course, as there is a difference between a lecture and actual study material.
     
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,469
    My point exactly.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    A good lecture can bring the study material to life, but a lecture can never substitute for study material, if you want to understand the subject properly or submit it to critical appraisal.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,440
    Images bypass logic whether you "choose" to allow them to or not, moving images are quite difficult and time consuming to search or reference - for the source of impressions or anything else - and the repetition that political deception depends on is effortless.

    Everyone except the blind has far more trouble with "discernment" when dealing with the moving images of video. Everyone. The mere act of seeing images is an initial belief, after all - the pitch target is already saying yes - and moving images are ephemeral: all objection must arise from memory, with all the manipulations and difficulties of memory interfering.

    So it's easier to deceive in video than in any other medium, and harder to counter or argue against deception in video than in any other medium. And deceivers - from Leni Reifenstahl to James O'Keefe - know that. It's the charlatan's choice.
     
  23. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    This subforum is for a dispassionate, scientific investigation of religion. And I believe that I proved that the pretense of quantum creationism (QC) out of absolute nothingness being a legitimate scientific concept qualifies as a religion. Furthermore, I think it's clear that your crying and pretended bewilderment about my point and all the distractions validates my argument. Another compelling proof is the claim that my use of video evidence isn't evidence. Thank you everyone.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2018

Share This Page